State Supreme Court Judge Gerard Neri recently ruled that a new state law that would have moved many local elections to line up with state and federal elections in even-numbered years violates the state Constitution. “Be it in the local paper, television, radio, online, or one’s mailbox, the competition for a voter’s attention is fierce. New York and the Plaintiff Counties are home to some of the most competitive House of Representative Races, and with that competition comes massive spending on advertising. There is simply no way local races can compete and obtain media attention, paid or earned, in that maelstrom,” Neri wrote. “Voters participate when they are aware, informed, and believe their vote matters. There is simply no state interest in the timing and changing of terms of local office.”
State Senator James Skoufis, a sponsor of the Even-Number Election Year Bill, said the state will appeal. “This case was always going to be appealed and I fully expect a more objective panel of judges to rule in favor of the law’s constitutionality,”
Mount Pleasant Supervisor Carl Fulgenzi praised the Onondaga Supreme Court’s recent ruling that declared the “Even-Year Election Bill” adopted by New York in 2023 unconstitutional.
The decision affirmed that the bill violated Article IX of the New York State Constitution, which protects the home-rule authority of local governments.
“We are pleased with the court’s ruling, which upholds the principle that local governments should decide their election dates. This is a matter of local concern, and it is essential that each community has the flexibility to choose the timing that best suits its needs. Forcing local elections to align with state and federal races undermines the focus on local issues, and we are glad that the court upheld our home-rule authority,” said Supervisor Fulgenzi.
The Even-Year Election Bill, passed last year, aimed to shift the timing of local elections for certain county and town officials to coincide with state and federal elections in even-numbered years, with the intent of increasing voter turnout and reducing voter confusion. However, many counties and towns, including Mount Pleasant, filed lawsuits challenging the bill, arguing that it infringed on local control.
The Onondaga Supreme Court consolidated these lawsuits and ruled that the state lacked the authority to impose the changes without a constitutional amendment or home rule message from the affected municipalities.
The court’s decision highlighted several key factors, including data showing a higher rate of voter drop-off and blank votes for local offices when elections occur simultaneously with state and federal elections. This supported the argument that combining elections could detract from local candidates and issues, further bolstering the case for local autonomy.
“The timing of local elections is not a matter of state concern, and we appreciate that the court recognized this,” Fulgenzi added. “Our residents deserve to have their voices heard on the issues that affect their daily lives without competing with the noise of national elections.”
